美國勞動法上組織活動中關於宣傳行為之保障

Abstract

現代社會中，工會已成為團結勞工力量、爭取權利，以對抗雇主的重要角色。工會要能展現集體力量與雇主抗衡，必然要從組織工會開始，宣傳行為便是組織活動中的重要一環，也必然與雇主發生權利上的衝突。因此，本文希望能從美國實務見解中，整理出美國實務在面臨雇主禁止工會進行宣傳行為時，如何平衡兩者間的衝突，以及如何建立出合法性原則的判斷標準，最後提出台灣應如何以此為借鏡。 本文第一章將先介紹研究動機、研究方法及本文的架構。第二章將先從美國工會發展的歷史、法制和制度進行介紹，以了解美國的背景如何影響到美國工會的宣傳行為。另外，在工會進行宣傳行為時，又如何與雇主財產權和經營利益發生衝突，成為美國實務在處理此類型不當勞動行為，所面臨的核心爭議。第三章將討論受僱者勞工進行宣傳行為時，面臨到雇主禁止招募拉票、禁止發放傳單、禁止穿戴工會標誌以及禁止使用雇主設施的規定，並整理出美國實務所認為的合法性判斷標準。第四章則討論非受僱者的工會組織者或工會代表在進行宣傳行為時，面臨到的主要爭議為與雇主的財產權發生衝突，本章將整理美國實務面臨此爭議，所提出的合法性判斷標準。 第五章為本文的結論。本文認為美國實務在判斷工會宣傳行為的合法性時，認為需要平衡勞工受國家勞工關係法第7條保障的權利，以及雇主基於財產權、經營管理的利益，應可作為我國的參考。然而美國實務在處理非受僱者宣傳行為的爭議時，應注意到美國實務似乎忽略對於溝通交流的保障，以及使得個案中失去彈性判斷的機會，我國不應直接援引。

In modern society, unions played an important role to organize workers, fight for workers’ rights and stand against employers’ economic power, and organization is the key to achieve these goals. Union propaganda is a crucial part of organizational activities. National Labor Relations Act section 7 guarantees employees to for self-organization, however, it caused conflicts between this right, employers’ property rights and managerial interests. This thesis aims to provide some inspirations for Taiwan to ease the conflicts, by conducting research on decisions and judgments from National Labor Relations Board, United States Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of the United States, which have long been engaged in adjustment between the rights of employees and employers. Chapter 1 introduces the research motivation and the structure of this thesis. Chapter 2 introduces the historical evolution of labor relations, collective bargaining and legal framework, and explain how the union recognition influences union organizational activities. In addition, this chapter discusses union organizational activities, which may conflict with employers’ rights. Chapter 3 focuses on basic presumptions and exceptions of the rules, including no-solicitation, no-distribution, forbidding wearing union insignia and forbidding using employer’s property. Chapter 4 concentrates on general principles relating to prohibition of entry against non-employee union organizers from employers’ property set by employers. Finally, Chapter 5 concludes that the best way to solve the disputation is to reconcile between employee organization rights and employer property rights. Taiwan can learn from the basic presumptions and exceptions of employees’ union organizational activities relating to union propaganda. The substantive distinction between the rights of those who are employees and non-employees is that an employer can lawfully exclude nonemployees from employer’s property. The distinction is made because property rights of the employer may not be yielded unless the union shows that the employees cannot be reached by other reasonable means. However, this standard may erode the ability of employees to communicate for self-organization, or lose the possibilities to balance employees’ organization rights and employers’ property rights.